Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> that doesn't mean they tidwell. >> gerald ford, george h.w. bush, and little billy clinton. >> i don't think mark liked the speech. >> let's try to be slightly dispassionate about it. [laughter] you have a whole host of problems in society. the liberal answer is to find it a government program that will fix id. state of the union address. the conservative approach is in what way is the government passed a regulation and taxation and corruptions and hindrances of all kinds holding back to this incredible engine of the private sector, which historically has provided unpresident -- unprecedented prosperity and liberty in america? that is the difference between the parties. rubio, if you look at the transcript -- i will not speak about the delivery. it was hot in there and he was obviously thursday. [laughter] the transcript was an excellent explanation of the conservative argument that what is coming america is a sclerotic, obsolete hanging onto every regulation, every increase in taxation, i thought he did it well. the problem is, he should have done it in a studio somewhere well-prepared. >>
that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth. john: , so, karen, if bill clinton kind the famous phrase that the era of big government over, did president obama launch the era of smart government? >> that's going to depend on what side of the aisle you were sitting on when you listened to the speech. but one thing about the speech, there was just a lot in it. he touched every single domestic policy initiative he has ever put together before, even the things that sounded sort of new -- minimum wage, raising it to $9 an hour. in his first campaign, he campaigned on raising it to $9.50 an hour by 2011 but what really came through to me in that speech was his declaration that essentially after two years of doing nothing but fighting with republicans over deficit reduction, he was no longer going to have deficit reduction define policy setting in washington. he said a balanced budget is an important thing but it is not the same as an economic plan. and i think he did that, in part, because the deficit has begun to come down but also because he realizes that has constrained him in doin
budget cuts known as sequestration. >> question. when former president clinton took the helm during an economic downturn, he said he had a quote laser-like focus on the economy. how would you describe the focus of president obama's state of the union pat buchanan? >> he did pivot back toward the jobs and the economy but overall this was a very libbal brail speech, something we have all heard before nothing new in it and a dead on aarrival speech. he is not going to get the minimum wage, not going to get the assault weapons ban, not going to get amnesty, not an awful lot of the things he has in there. he is appealing to his base and appealing to what he sees as the majority of the country, which probably does support most of what he said. it was a very political speech but in terms of what is going to be abe complished i don't think it was at all relevant. >> eleanor? >> it was in tune with the country. he is going to get immigration reform, something he can call a victory on guns, probably universal background checks and legislation to curb gun trafficking, the gun that killed the y
, is darting for the pole in spring and the fact he could laugh the next day reminded me of bill clinton-- clinton getting him-- next night on the-- two nights later on the tonight show bill clinton said that was not the best hour of my life. it was probably not the best hour and a half. and the fact that he could laugh at himself, i think rubio may have bailed himself out. >> woodruff: political careers are often shaped by these responses. >> i agree with that. he did recover well. you known, i don't think his career is ended by an epic episode of dry mouth, mark often has that effect on me, actually. but i would say that i agree with mark that he reframed the republican story in this speech. given his own biography. he didn't really refrain-- reframe the republican philosophy it was very much small government versus big government. that's what we heard for a long time. i think republicans are going to have to have more than boot staps message. they're going to have to define a limited but active role as government to help people gain the skills they need to compete in the modern econom
from leon panetta and from david petraeus at ci and from hillary clinton at state to do something. >> so what happened, i believe, and i did a lot of reporting on it. and actually it was an article that i worked on with mark rangler that was the basis of the question that elicited secretary panetta's response. in iraq training the troops was looking for a way in syria. he wanted not only to influence the situation on the ground now but assuming assad is deposed, the thought was it would be beneficial from the united states had some stronger relationships with the fighting groups of groups inside syria. the people actually in control the ground. then secretary of state hillary clinton supported that argument. so did leon panetta and general dempsey. that was brought to the whitehouse before the election not a political climb to do something controversial like that but it would have been a limited operation in the sense they weren't going to provide what they call man pads, air defense weapons because they didn't want to risk them falling into the wrong hands and endangering israel
it's hard, charlie, i really do. >> rose: secretary of state clinton, who you worked with, panetta petraeus, all recommended we do something. and the president said no, and you say the president was right to say no and other people can ask this question: how many syrians have to die before the west does something? >> well, i think this has to constantly be reexamined. as i understand it, the president is looking at things again. trying to figure out -- i talk about something called-- i made this up-- the doability doctrine. >> rose: right. >> can we really make a difference? and i know some people have compared it to the we did something military in libya with nato. very different kind of situation because the libyan army basically didn't exit. the question is whether there's value in creating a no-fly zone. whether it would really do something useful. whether -- the questions i would ask is whether the assad military regime has been weakened so that in fact there can be a functional no-fly zone. the other question i would ask is how many arms are needed there? as i understand it,
states who is part of this book. >> he's not a big schmoozer himself. >> rose: far cry from bill clinton. >> no, that's right. or lyndon b johnson. >> rose: or teddy kennedy. >> that's right, that's right. >> rose: they seemed to thrive on the flesh. >> yeah, he obviously doesn't. and. >> rose: but is he funny? >> i don't know how funny he is. i think that this campaign, this campaign was a lot about what would happen on the ground, as you know. and the obama people reminded me, remember old pauls in american cities, the kind of politician who knew every pole watcher by first name and all that. when they wanted to compliment somebody who they think really understands how thing works, they would say the man can count. >> rose: yes. >> that's right. >> and obama's guy kos count. >> rose: they could count, yes. >> and so they didn't have what was going on in their favor in 2008, the sort of excitement of it, the people's. >> rose: they are also good at gee-- geography. they can take somebody that wants to vote to the place where they can vote, that's a big deal. >> and this is a more effect
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)